more on Op-Ed Columnist: May I See Your ID?

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

Delivered-To: dfarber+ () ux13 sp cs cmu edu
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 13:08:26 -0500
From: Dave Wilson <dave () wilson net>
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Op-Ed Columnist: May I See Your ID?
X-Sender: dave () wilson net@mail.wilson.net
To: dave () farber net

(Disclaimer: I was a journalist for two decades)

With regard to things like ricin production, the Supreme Court's decision 
in the Pentagon Papers case gives us a straightforward test about when 
material should be removed from public view: information that offers 
"grave, direct, immediate and irreparable harm to the national security of 
the United States" can be restricted by the government.

This test is so narrow that in 1979 the government even abandoned attempts 
to block the publication of an article explaining how to build a hydrogen 
bomb in a magazine called The Progressive, despite actually winning an 
injunction from a federal judge barring publication.

Why such a narrow test? Because, as in the case of the Pentagon Papers, 
otherwise officials will attempt to claim national security is at stake 
when in reality they only seek to protect themselves or wound their 
opponents. The Pentagon Papers detailed a concerted effort by certain 
individuals to mislead the American public about the conflict in Vietnam. 
In a sense, national security *was* at stake, but not for the obvious reasons.

The Pentagon Papers test recognizes the human frailty present in many of 
us. How many people do you know who would not be tempted to protect 
themselves, their friends, or their allies by attempting to suppress 
damaging information on national secuity grounds? By setting up such a 
strict test, a wise Supreme Court largely removed such temptations.

Does anybody legitimately need to know how to make ricin? I can't imagine 
why, at least not at the present time. I also can't imagine why anybody 
would need to make a hydrogen bomb based on the information in The 
Progressive. And I certainly disagree with the idea that just because you 
know something you should be able to publish it. But I don't know of a test 
that would let the government legitimately ban information about 
manufacture of ricin that couldn't be abused. For instance, we used to lock 
people up for saying bad -- but sometimes true -- things about this nation 
because those statements damaged our morale, which hurt us and helped our 
enemies. I can't imagine we ever want to go back there.

There was a Supreme Court justice who used to rib federal solicitors by 
saying, "I interpret the phrase 'Congress shall make no law restricting 
freedom of speech' to mean that Congress shall make no law restricting 
freedom of speech." It's not that we can't identify stuff that should be 
restricted; it's that it's too hard to stop once we get started. I am proud 
to live in a nation where the right to speak remains cherished and 
protected, despite occasional efforts to the contrary.


-dave


At 10:23 AM 3/20/2004, you wrote:

> From: Rich Wiggins <wiggins () msu edu>
>
> Dave,
>
> I am a big believer in free speech, almost an absolutist.  I also
> think you need to take a rational, statistical, public health
> approach to threats.  So these arguments against censoring, for
> instance, the patent on how to make toxic ricin, appeal to me.
>
> But there is a valid case on the other side.
>
> A recent letter to the New York Times claimed that since photography
> has been around for well over a century, hand held cell phones with
> cameras could never constitute an invasion of privacy.
>
> This is of course nonsense.  In 1865 only Matthew Brady and a
> handful of peers carried around cumbersome cameras.  Put a 6 ounce
> digital camera in the pockets of millions of people, and there
> will be thousands of egregious violations of privacy.  Invasions are
> well documented -- in locker rooms, bathrooms, nude beaches, whatever.
>
> We know that terrorists exist.  We know they use the Internet.
> Yes, they have their own cookbooks and manuals.  But if information
> is readily available to the, say, million or so terrorists on this
> planet, it is a statistical certainty that more deaths will occur.
>
> When we put public health information online, we hope and believe
> it will save lives.  When we make it easy to Google how to make
> ricin, it is foolish in the extreme to conclude no one will follow
> the instructions.  You either believe that the ready availability
> of information on the Internet changes lives and behaviors, or you
> don't.  No fair believing that only good information changes behavior.
>
> All of this said, I do not know if we should censor as Kristof
> proposed in his Op Ed column.  How many additional deaths do we
> tolerate to preserve free speech?  (Cue the Ben Franklin quote...)
>
> /rich
> -------------------------------------
> You are subscribed as dave () wilson net
> To manage your subscription, go to
>  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
> Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/